We're all somewhat familiar with the concept of alignment. Alignment is kind of a composite description of your character's moral code. In Toril, our alignment is a one-dimensional scale from 1000 to -1000, represented as a gradient between "good" and "evil."

Alignment in D&D is a two-dimensional scale. That is, there are two axes upon which your character's alignment is judged. The first is Law vs. Chaos, and deals with your attitude toward authority, law, common practice, and societal expectations. The second axis is Good vs. Evil, and handles your perspective on altruism, charity, greed, materialism, and so forth. A character is assigned an alignment which represents his position on both axes. A Paladin would be Lawful Good, for example. A bloodthirsty Assassin would be Chaotic Evil.

Your alignment is not just a measure of your actions, but also of your intentions. Many actions are tempered by their motivations, and two people who commit the same act may do so for very different reasons.

This post is designed to help you figure out how your character's personality fits into the D&D alignment system. I'll talk about each axis, and then give examples of specific alignments.

Law vs. Chaos (Axiom)

LawfulA Lawful character believes in order over entropy. He respects authority, conceding to those in positions of superiority. A Lawful character loves king and country, and strives to live the life expected of him as a contributing member of a law-abiding community. He does these things because he truly believes that following the law is the correct moral decision. A Lawful character does not obey the law out of fear or coercion, but out of a genuine sense of pride. Lawful characters often strive to "find their niche" in society. Ever felt like you couldn't quite figure out where you "belong?" You might be a Lawful character.

Being Lawful doesn't always relate to the written law of the land, however. "Law" can also refer to moral codes or societal norms. An Orcish Fighter who engages in unprovoked warfare against a neighboring tribe could very well be Lawful, if his tribe expects him to act as a warrior in unquestioning service of the chief.

In real life terms, a perfectly Lawful character drives the speed limit, avoids illegal drugs, returns library books on time, and shows proper respect to both his boss and his elders. Military personnel are often Lawful, due to their respect for discipline and the chain of command.

Lawful Rogues do exist in society. I'll give examples later on.

NeutralAn Axiomatically Neutral character does not strictly adhere to the law, nor does he purposely eschew it. There are a lot of ways to portray neutrality. Perhaps your character obeys the law, but only if there are consequences or if "someone is watching." Maybe he obeys laws he agrees with, and tends to test the limits a bit when coming up against rules he disagrees with or doesn't understand. Some neutral characters toe the line, dancing in "grey areas" between law and anarchy. No matter how your character acts, he is not compulsive about being the person society expects of him, but he does not purposely rebel or act illegally.

A neutral character may also believe in the natural order... that is, where the laws of nature and the laws of men cross, he sides with nature. This is primarily a Ranger/Druid outlook on neutrality, though it can be adopted by anyone.

Neutral character may also just choose to "not get involved" with matters of law or culture.

In real life, a neutral person might choose to smoke marijuana at home because he views it as a "victimless crime." A person who witnesses a car accident and chooses not to get involved is also neutral. So is a person who drives a little over the limit, except when he sees a police car.

ChaoticA Chaotic person actively rebels against authority, eschews law, and/or promotes disorder. Ever heard the phrase "It's not illegal unless you get caught?" That's a Chaotic way of thinking. Chaotic characters often act according to their own desires, whether those desires are just or selfish, noble or sadistic. It can be said that a Chaotic character follows his own moral compass... what that means is largely up to the character.

Chaotic characters are sometimes drifters, roaming from place to place without being shackled to a community. The traditional nomadic Bard may very likely be Chaotic.

Sneaking into a movie theater without paying is a good example of a Chaotic action. Most criminals are Chaotic (but not all - intention plays a big part), but so are most rockstars. The villain who kidnaps a villager's child is a Chaotic character... but so is the hero who saves the child by torturing information out of the villain.

Good vs. Evil (Morality)

GoodA Good character puts the welfare of others before himself.

A Good character is exactly what you expect... charitable, kind, nonjudgemental, altruistic, and compassionate. Traditional heroes are usually Good-aligned. It's very easy for a Good character to find motivation to act... he simply has to perceive a wrong which must be righted, and off he goes.

A Good character tithes to his church, because those poor orphans need food. He offers to take the longest watch so his friends don't get robbed in their sleep. He charges into combat to save a wounded friend, even if it means great personal risk. Someone who is Good-aligned saves the village because it's what needs to be done, not because there's a reward. He certainly might ACCEPT the reward, but he probably would have done it anyway.

Good Rogues do exist in the game and in real life. I'll give examples later on.

NeutralA Morally Neutral character acts without thought to who benefits.

Moral Neutrality can be a little hard to pin down. Morally Neutral characters aren't really concerned with "right" and "wrong," and may question whether those concepts actually exist. Morality isn't black and white, and it can be difficult for a Neutral character to explain his motivations. Neutral doesn't mean "indecisive" (though it can), it just means you may not be able to guess how a Neutral character chooses his actions.

A Morally Neutral character can be somewhat noncommittal at times. He prays to his god, but believes he can spend his money better than the Church can. The Neutral guy won't stab you in the back while you sleep, but he'll certainly let Sir Galahad take the most dangerous watch. He'll charge into combat to save a wounded friend, but only if the odds look good. Someone who is Neutral saves the village if he was headed there anyway, but he won't make a detour unless there's a damn good reason (and if he's Lawful Neutral, "because the king told me to" is a pretty damn good reason).

EvilEvil characters act with their own benefit firmly in mind.

Evil is a hard alignment for many people to grasp, believe it or not. Traditionally, Evil can mean sadistic, cruel, unjust, deceitful, and shallow. That's a good way to play ultimate villains within the campaign. However, that really doesn't leave D&D players much room to play Evil characters without causing strife within the party. Thankfully, this is not the only way we can define Evil within the game.

Simply put, Evil means "self-centered." An Evil character is one who acts primarily for his own benefit. An Evil character can be greedy without being sadistic. You don't even have to lie, cheat, or steal to be Evil. Like I said before, motivation goes a long way when determining your character's alignment. One of my favorite catch phrases for Evil characters is "Hey, I love the party, as long as they get me closer to the treasure." Your Evil character might be perfectly willing to adventure with a group of churchy king-fearing Paladins, as long as the personal benefits are rich enough. Perhaps you want to kill the bad guy because he's threatening your family. Maybe you want to kill him out of spite because of a past insult. Or maybe you just want the key to his expansive treasure vault.

An Evil character might tithe to his church, particularly if he needs a favor from the High Priest. An Evil character would certainly keep watch over the party while they sleep... but you should probably secure your valuables. If the Evil guy saves you from the maw of the dragon, you can expect him to keep you "on the hook" until he needs something from you. The Evil character goes with the party to save the village, if the reward is good enough. And while he's there, the deceased villagers won't REALLY be needing their stuff anymore, will they?

Examples of Specific Alignments

Lawful Good: The paragon of virtue, all Paladins are required to be Lawful Good. LG characters do what's right in every circumstance. They have a clear picture of "right" and "wrong," and in their mind, the law is usually "right."

Superman is Lawful Good. He never lies, he fights for truth and justice, and he always saves the citizens of Metropolis without expecting a reward.

Lawful Good Rogues do actually exist. A police detective is an excellent example of a LG Rogue.

Lawful Neutral: To a LN character, the law comes first. Justice and honor are prime virtues, and such hazy ideals as "right" and "wrong" are not as important as what's expected.

Spock is Lawful Neutral. Logic and order are the keystone of proper behavior, not emotion and morality. Lawful Neutral characters make excellent judges and politicians.

Lawful Evil: Lawful Evil characters exploit the law for their own personal ends. LE is an alignment often used for corrupt political figures or other individuals who use their power for personal gain.

Darth Vader (the real Darth Vader, not the whiny bitch) is the pinnacle example of Lawful Evil. Calculating and malevolent, yet predictable in his methods, Darth Vader uses his authority to the utmost in his attempt to crush the rebellion.

Lawful Evil is one of my favorite alignments to play :)

Neutral Good: Someone who is Neutral Good tries his best to help others, without regard for legality or societal codes. There are two excellent ways to play NG. In the first form, Neutral Good is usually considered the "purest" form of good, because the character generally acts out of pure morality without consideration for legality or structure.

In this example, most fantasy heroes are Neutral Good. Frodo is the perfect example of NG. He undertakes his quest not because he HAS to, but because he WANTS to do good.

The second method of Neutral Good is that of the one-off hero. Though his intentions are always good, perhaps his methods are a little questionable at times. The ends justify the means, know what I mean?

True Neutral: Three main ways to play this. The first is a character who acts according to how he feels, independent of moral or legal codes. The second way is someone who purposely acts to "uphold the balance" between Law and Chaos, Good and Evil. This is a typical Druidic view. The third way to view True Neutral is someone who believes in the natural order over all else.

This is debatable, but I'd argue that Professor Xavier is True Neutral. While he teaches the X-Men to respect the laws of humans, there are times when mutants need to act outside the law to achieve their goals. And likewise, while Xavier's ultimate goal is peace between humans and mutants, sometimes that means putting the X-Men agenda first, above the people he's trying to help. He works for balance, not superiority. Good candidate for True Neutral.

Neutral Evil: Neutral Evil is an alignment for those who simply care about nobody but themselves. There's seldom malice or malevolance behind their actions, but let's face it... if I don't profit, it's not worth doing. To make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs, and that's ok as long as I'M the one having breakfast.

Boba Fett is Neutral Evil. Got cash? No problem. Doesn't particularly care whether he's chasing a wanted criminal or a leader of the rebellion (is there a difference?). As long as the check clears at the end of the day, everything's cool.

Chaotic Good: Someone who "has a good heart," but doesn't necessarily act the way he is expected to. A Chaotic Good character does what he thinks is right, even if others don't necessarily agree.

Robin Hood is the classic Chaotic Good character. He acts to help the poor, but he does so by purposely stealing from the rich.

Chaotic Good Rogues do exist in the world. A private investigator is a good example of a CG Rogue.

Ragorn was Chaotic Good when I actively roleplayed him.

Chaotic Neutral: The voice of unpredictability and uncertainty, the CN character does whatever he feels in the moment. It's a little tricky to play CN without acting completely at random. Your motivations are yours alone, and it's anyone's guess why you do what you do. You aren't in it purely for personal gain, but you can't turn down a clear opportunity.

Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) and Tyler Durdan are excellent examples of Chaotic Neutral. Not completely insane, but not entirely predictable.

Chaotic Evil: Classical Evil. Brutal, sadistic, ruthless. Actively seeks to cause chaos and disruption. Similar but opposite to Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil characters see evil as its own reward, and "evil" is often a motivating factor in and of itself. Has no problem manipulating and betraying those foolish enough to trust him.

The Joker, Lord Voldemort, and Jack the Ripper are all examples of Chaotic Evil. These characters go beyond "self-centered" into downright diabolical.

Conclusion

Alignment is often debatable in D&D. When creating your character, you can start with an alignment you'd like to play and build your personality from there, or you can pick the alignment which best suits your character. Most of all, remember that alignment DESCRIBES you. It's not meant to restrict you, or to tell you how you're "supposed" to play your character. Alignment can change, and your character can certainly perform actions which might be uncharacteristic for someone of his alignment. Alignment is just a general term which describes the typical attitude of your character.

So? What alignment are you? What alignment is your character?

- RagornShar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.

But seriously, the classic D&D alignment/ethos system is something I have really been hoping will be implemented in 2.0. If nothing else, it will give more variety to spells and enchanted weapons, by allowing them to affect the ethos half (law/chaos). Though this may have changed between 3.0 and 3.5 (or I may just be getting senile), I seem to remember that there are a few creatures that require lawful weapons to bypass damage reduction.

Yasden wrote:Well, not to split hairs, but I've always felt assassins (not rogues/thieves in general) were more of the NE alignment. I'll cite a good reference for anyone who wishes to learn about alignment.

I have no problem with a wayword-soul-turned-Rogue playing Chaotic Neutral. The thing about it is, that Neutral means the character must weigh the balance between self-importance and the willingness to help others. If a Rogue is completely out for himself, and would be unwilling to risk his life or livelihood for the sake of a friend or companion, then he is Evil.

It's a tough distinction, a lot of players I've gamed with play Chaotic Neutral as "Chaotic Greedy." In reality, a character whose primary motivation is loot is probably evil (unless they need the money to build an orphanage). And while it's hard to envision Chaotic Evil as anything other than cold, diobolical evil, you can certainly play Chaotic Evil as a treasure-hungry thief who will do what he needs to do to advance his own station.

If you play CN, you need to be altruistic once in a while. Some Rogues are, some aren't, and the ones that aren't are probably closer to CE.

- RagornShar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.

I'm not sure, I think Ashiwi runs the spectrum of Lawful to Chaotic, but definitely Good, depending on the circumstances. Queen and Country first and foremost, and in order to protect that she's not unwilling to crack a few heads and break a few fingers (one by one, all the way up to the seventh knuckle) on the bad guys. It can be distasteful, but if it's what she has to do in order to uphold the safety and welfare of her people, then she's first in line to do it.

In her off hours she works for her own personal gain, but as long as it's in a do-no-harm approach. She wouldn't just step aside from a treasure hunt to save a village, she would donate from her own coffers to import food and rebuild houses once the battle was done... and then sit in the remains of their inn and rework her plans about how to get back to the treasure hunt. She would carefully consider the methods used to bring a villain to justice, and then she would either show up at his door with legal enforcement, or sneak through his window with a wire and a bodybag after dark, based on her assessment of what it's going to take to get the job done. If the Queen asked her to give up everything to man a watchtower on EM, that's what she would do, but in the meantime, she has a long list of historical references she would like to check first. The treasure hunt isn't just a treasure hunt for her... it's historical spelunking, and the treasures she gains are pieces of an ancient puzzle she enjoys working. She's the sponsor of the dig, and the one there with the shovel and the brush down in the deepest pits.

The closest fictional character I've ever found to Ashiwi is Indiana Jones. Very lawful at heart, chaotic when the situation calls for it, a thief for the cause of justice, a teacher and a rogue for the ideals he believes in.

I suppose if she's lawful when she needs to be, and chaotic when the situation calls for it, then that's basically a chaotic persona, correct?

Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

If Ashiwi puts Queen and Country first, then I don't believe she's Chaotic. It sounds to me like Ashiwi might fall into the category of Neutral Good. She is equally comfortable working under the constraints of the law as she is using "extraordinary techniques." However, her motives are generally pure, and she displays compassion and altruism in dealing with others.

That sounds to me like Neutral Good, and Indiana Jones is one of the typical examples given of a NG alignment.

- RagornShar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.

I don't think I've played an axoim other than neutral since Kildran. It gives my characters a lot more freedom to do what they need to do, not to mention that its in keeping with my real personality.

I hope that more people put serious thought into their characters before jumping into roleplay scenarios. I see too many people RPing without enough thought to what their character would actually do, when they're obviously just trying to get the scenario finished. Plus its fun to throw the staff for a loop by sticking to your character's guns!

If you're just looking at alignment from a powergamer standpoint, I encourage you to at least understand what your choice means.

Disoputlip wrote:In adnd it is fairly rare you see alignment restricted items.

I suppose it depends on your DM, and whether you play a store bought adventure or a homebrew, but in my experience, holy and unholy weapons are not at all uncommon, though axiomatic and anarchic are a bit on the rare side. However, in the realm of armor, wonderous items, etc, you are right in saying there are few cases of alignment specifics.

Disoputlip wrote:Also paladins that does something silly. like kill a mob in a city, should instantly change to neutral and loose avenger etc.

mabye the atone spell could be implemented to make it good again.

There is a big difference between a paladin (or cleric, or other priest) losing the favor of his patron, and shifting alignments. To shift alignments, you would have to do a fair bit more than a single act that is contrary to your nature. Alignments are a rough guideline for behavior, not a strict and unwavering mold for a person to be stuffed into. It just guages how a person or creature acts most of the time.

As for the attonement spell, well, I am all for it. It's a shame they didn't have it available back when outcast rules were still enforced.

I'd have do disagree with what you said about rogues and neutrality. Neutrality is'nt just about balance its about following the natural course. Law of nature etc. So i'd say it is more than probable for a loot seeking character to be neutral and he's only drift into being evil if he uses diabolical and vicious means to get the wealth.

Guardias wrote:I'd have do disagree with what you said about rogues and neutrality. Neutrality is'nt just about balance its about following the natural course. Law of nature etc. So i'd say it is more than probable for a loot seeking character to be neutral and he's only drift into being evil if he uses diabolical and vicious means to get the wealth.

Chaotic Neutral Rogues are a mainstay of the rogue community :lol:

Because theft is such a neutral act, eh? Because greed is natural, so taking someone else's gold or treasure is perfectly normal?

Sorry, but there are all sorts of evil. It may not be diabolical, it may not be vicious, but if you're primarily motivated by loot collecting for your own selfish desires, if you don't care whose loot you're collecting, if you're willing to break a few heads or bend a few laws to get it, it's evil.

wodat doesnt generally kill things at random, i mean he leaves the things that dont bother his homeland alone things like illithids yuan -ti he doesnt mess with. but things that bother his homeland he doesnt hesitate to run out there axe swinging shield up head down. things like drow, troll, ogres, giant, orcs ect ect ect. but then again he doesnt nesicarily adhere to law either. if something annoys hi m to much. it ends up dead. it could have been nothing more than the 40th beggar in an hour asking for some booze money. so where would that fall he isnt lawfull i dont think and he isnt evil perse' hhe doesnt strive for a balance nor is he non active. nfc where that would be.

Lilira manages to avoid sliding into LG by fact she breaks the rules of society. Most of her actions are directed to help people in general (though she has her greedy side.. god look at her silk collection) but she does it on her terms, not according to the laws a race, city or kingdom impose.

Because I work so hard to keep her align neutral.. I call her neutral good. And well.. I took the online alignment test for me and that's where I landed. *grin*

~\o--Lilira Shadowlyre--o/~

You group-say 'my chars will carry the component on them if I can.'Inama group-says 'hopefully they'll have some sort of volume discounts on ress items for people like you'You group-say 'oh? Ya think? *giggle*'Inama group-says 'they could at least implement frequent dier miles'

Good post Ragorn. I always, always, enjoy reading stuff on alignment. I'm a huge nerd. Two points of criticism of opinion, one thrown at you, the other in general.

1. Dr. X ain't true neutral. I know where you're coming from, but he's Good based on his actions. If anything, I think you're right, but in the sense that he's Neutral Good, not True Neutral. If anything evil is attacking, he wants the guys there to defend Earth or whatnot. I know where your line of thinking is coming from though, but I do think he's more Good than Neutral.

2. I used to do alot of reading (omg huge nerd) on the topic of alignment back when I used to collect Dragon magazine (excellent magazine, omg huge nerd) and actively play ADND. I was the alignment Nazi whenever someone did something they prolly really wouldn't do. The one thing many of these articles, written by the founders, writers, etc., always said was how HARD it was to REALLY play a Chaotic Neutral character. Alot of people play CN guys alot, but I don't think they really play them as they SHOULD be played. An old adage back in 2.0 was that the CN character was almost insane, almost. Alot of people confuse CN with TN, and really Chaotic and Neutral axioms are very different, as you pointed out to Birile I think just now, or someone else, forgot. And you yourself mentioned it at the end of your CN example..."not completely insane".

People have a fascination with CN at times, without REALLY knowing what it entails.

And I think most Rangers are CG as well Rags :) Adriorn always has been as well.

Hey Gorm, by Neutral did you mean morally or the axiom?

The fun part is sitting down and trying to realize what your real life alignment REALLY is (omg huge nerd).

Actually, the guy who originally said this is really a huge nerd:

"The good-versus-evil axis has been criticized for ethical reasons. Some critics within and outside the role-playing comunity argue that labelling a person (as opposed to an act) as good or evil is not only a gross oversimplification -even psychopaths do good deeds [1] - but inherently, ethically wrong. It should not be practiced even in a game." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_ ... _&_Dragons))

The bottom half of the article contains retarded comments like this one, stating how alignment in ADND is crappy and not really true, and gives a bunch of philosophical reasons why this is so, quoting Plato, etc.. Get a fucking life. It's a game. Things need to be simple. It goes on to say how killing orcs is considered 'good', as is killing baby orcs and...I nearly killed myself. Who plays thinking that killing orcs on sight is a 'good aligned' deed? Maybe the simpletons who play Paladins and kill anything evil on sight. If they attack me it is, or do something 'evil', but if they don't it's not. Maybe I'm not 15 anymore, oops, that's prolly why.

omg I'm a huge nerd.

afk 15 minutes, orange juice bottle is trying to make corn

"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs